In the scriptures we find the existence of a church hierarchy with bishops, priests and deacons.
I regularly read questions challenging Catholics to "show me in the bible where it says Peter is pope?"
So let us now ask those same people why they don't have bishops (episkopos) ?
The King James Version renders the office of overseer, episkopen, as "bishopric" (Acts 1:20)
2007-10-28
03:25:03
·
11 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
budleit you've misrepresented the bible verse by taking it out of context, where does it demand a bishop be married? it doesn't, it merely instructs that if he be married he be married once. I'll think of another question to respond to you on this
2007-10-28
03:49:42 ·
update #1
bud try to remember no one is forced into the priesthood hence no one is forced not to marry. Both the Roman Catholic Church and all Eastern Orthodox Churches elect men who are single to the episkopos. Orthodox priests and Eastern Catholic priests can be married but not after they are ordained.
2007-10-28
03:52:40 ·
update #2
Elizabeth you mention two key points the issue of calling priests "spiritual fathers" and taking the bible literally I think I can answer both here as Jesus himself referred to Abraham as "father Abraham
John 8: 53-56 http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/B43C008.htm
53Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
54Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
55Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
56Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
1 Cor. 4:15 - Paul writes, "I became your father in Christ Jesus."
Phil. 2:22 - Paul calls Timothy's service to him as a son serves a "father."
Philemon 10 - Paul says he has become the "father" of Onesimus
Clearly Liz your understanding is incomplete
2007-10-28
03:59:25 ·
update #3
John's Revelation or what is correctly called Apocalypse was not written in a "literal" style but is extremely symbolic. Therefore we cannot attempt to read in the same way as other books of the bible where the author writes in a literal form.
2007-10-28
04:03:36 ·
update #4
budleit I understand that behind policemen Protestant pastors in America have the second highest rate of divorce go figure based on your argument you'd think theirs is the way to go. Question, upon evangelising the world did the first apostles who were married pack up their entire household and carry it with them?
2007-10-30
12:57:57 ·
update #5
Not have bishops? Who said there are no bishops in the Church? That is what I am, the bishop of the church in Crescent.
I don't know how you mixed priest in with the ruling authority of the church. A priest had only one duty and that was to offer sacrifice.. Jesus is our High Priest. In that position He offered His blood for the sins of all mankind, once for all.. We (the believers) are all kings and priests unto God. We offer the sacrifice of praise to our Father.. So by all means hold the offices of Bishop and Deacon up as Church authority. Just drop the idea that a priest has the same authority. Still be a priest and PRAISE Him who gave Himself that we might live.. IHS Jim
2007-10-28 03:42:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
4⤋
I was raised Catholic. Most of my family are Catholic. I do not see anything against the way the Catholics have bishops and popes in the bible. I am not in the Catholic church at this time. What I see people having a problem with is calling a priest, father.
Do you mind me asking, do all Catholic churches believe that the Bible should not be taken literally, and that the book of Revelations should not be taken seriously. A priest told me that the Revelations was written by John when he was not in his right mind.
I believe that all Christianity is under one roof. I hope to make it clear that I have a love for all the churches professing Jesus
coming in the flesh as our Lord and savior, as do the Catholics.
2007-10-28 10:41:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by Elizabeth 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
We have all of those in our non-denominational fellowship, but they were not ever a paid position. The men of the congregation perform these duties not a hired group in my fellowship we call them evangelists, elders, and deacons. I often teach bible lessons, give prayer, administer communion ect the laymen share these duties. We have no expenses all our money goes to charities.
the bible says in I think 2nd Timothy and elder is a man of one wife so why does the Catholic Church not let priests marry?
yes I don't know the whole verse on this or even if it is in Timothy.
I think the reason for this is to show that they can manage a family first before they can be an elder and manage a flock. I understand they don't have to join the priesthood but I think Catholic priests should be able to marry. This is an interpretation of that verse and certainly is just my opinion.
2007-10-28 10:32:47
·
answer #3
·
answered by budleit2 6
·
3⤊
2⤋
The two churches I have attended a pentecostal and an evangelical methodist have that hierarchy. Although not necessarily the exact same name.
That is instead of priest we have pastors. But they also have bishops, and deacons.
EDIT: Curious, a thumbs down? I see others who responded similarly to me also got a thumbs down.
2007-10-28 10:30:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by thankyou "iana" 6
·
5⤊
1⤋
A church can have all the Bishops, Deacons and Priests it wants if Christ isn't there it's strictly a building full of religious fat cats.
2007-10-28 10:29:38
·
answer #5
·
answered by drg5609 6
·
4⤊
1⤋
1 Peter 2: 4 & 6 to 8 + Acts 4: 8 to 12 Identify Jesus as the foundation of the church not Peter.
2007-10-28 10:36:11
·
answer #6
·
answered by an-noy 4
·
5⤊
3⤋
why argue? We are all under the same God and i believe i will see people of all denominations in heaven. Doesn't the bible say something about idle conversation. That is all your question leads to not to mention controversy. We are not to offend our brothers and sisters in christ.
2007-10-28 10:41:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by Heath H 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
I do not know of a True Christian congregation that does not have someone in each of those positions... they may call them by different names... but the positions are filled... there are some small independent congrigations with less formal orginization...because of their small numbers... but even in these there are those who the others look to for leadership and guidence... I believe God directs those he chooses to the position he wants them to hold in His Church...
2007-10-28 10:31:47
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 5
·
6⤊
2⤋
Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love "the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men" (Matt. 23:6-7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees’ proud hearts and their grasping after marks of status and prestige.
He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.
Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell" (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16).
Since Jesus is demonstrably using hyperbole when he says not to call anyone our father-else we would not be able to refer to our earthly fathers as such-we must read his words carefully and with sensitivity to the presence of hyperbole if we wish to understand what he is saying.
Jesus is not forbidding us to call men "fathers" who actually are such-either literally or spiritually. (See below on the apostolic example of spiritual fatherhood.) To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood-or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood-to those who do not have it.
As the apostolic example shows, some individuals genuinely do have a spiritual fatherhood, meaning that they can be referred to as spiritual fathers. What must not be done is to confuse their form of spiritual paternity with that of God. Ultimately, God is our supreme protector, provider, and instructor. Correspondingly, it is wrong to view any individual other than God as having these roles.
Throughout the world, some people have been tempted to look upon religious leaders who are mere mortals as if they were an individual’s supreme source of spiritual instruction, nourishment, and protection. The tendency to turn mere men into "gurus" is worldwide.
This was also a temptation in the Jewish world of Jesus’ day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man-the formation of a "cult of personality" around him-of which Jesus is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father, or teacher.
He is not forbidding the perfunctory use of honorifics nor forbidding us to recognize that the person does have a role as a spiritual father and teacher. The example of his own apostles shows us that.
The Apostles Show the Way
The New Testament is filled with examples of and references to spiritual father-son and father-child relationships. Many people are not aware just how common these are, so it is worth quoting some of them here.
Paul regularly referred to Timothy as his child: "Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ" (1 Cor. 4:17); "To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (1 Tim. 1:2); "To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (2 Tim. 1:2).
He also referred to Timothy as his son: "This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare" (1 Tim 1:18); "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 2:1); "But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22).
Paul also referred to other of his converts in this way: "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4); "I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul’s literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them.
2007-10-28 17:00:58
·
answer #9
·
answered by Sentinel 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
So?
Most denominations have such a setup with bishops (called regional heads in some denominations), without a "pope", since there's no "pope" in the Bible.
You've proven nothing.
Catholics are not saved and are not Christians. Catholics teach a false gospel of works that leads to eternal hell.
Bible teachers that called the Vatican and the catholic cult an antichrist:
John Bunyan, John Huss, John Wycliffe, John Calvin, William Tyndale, John Knox, Thomas Bacon, John Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, Samuel Cooper, John Cotton, and Jonathan Edwards
2007-10-28 10:29:09
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
11⤋